KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, he
states the Judge’s decision was based on outdated information.  His brief also provides a
narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his debts and forwards a copy of a credit report
that post-dates the Judge’s decision.  These matters, however, constitute new evidence that the
Appeal Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01046
DATE: 04/11/2018
DATE: April 11, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01046
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On July
1, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case
be decided on the written record.  On January 19, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
In responding to the SOR on August 4, 2016, Applicant admitted the alleged delinquent
debts, indicated that he fully intended to reconcile those debts, but also stated that he did not have
extra money to devote to them.  On September 14, 2016, Applicant received a copy of Department
Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and was advised that he had 30 days from its receipt
to submit additional information.  He did not submit a response to the FORM.
In his appeal brief, Applicant raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Rather, he states the Judge’s decision was based on outdated information.  His brief also provides
a narrative statement about his efforts to resolve his debts and forwards a copy of a credit report that 
post-dates the Judge’s decision.  These matters, however, constitute new evidence that the Appeal
Board cannot consider.  See Directive E3.1.29.
The Board does not review cases de novo.  Our authority to review a case is limited to cases
in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Because Applicant has
not made such an allegation of harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security
clearance is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale               
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2